Siddha Pranali

[Guest guest]

 

Also,to raga,not to be jerk,but I remember "when Krsna desires to enjoy,he becomes Radha",as being correct.

Maybe i'm wrong.

Maybe not.

I know that Srila Prabhupadas books have been changed,of late.

Can you resource a copy of C.C. before he left this planet?

 

[raga]

"When Krsna desires to enjoy, He becomes Radha" is correct, given that we have a correct understanding. The proper understanding in the words of Swami AC Bhaktivedanta is:

 

"When Krishna desired to enjoy His pleasure potency, He manifested Himself in the separate form of Radharani."

 

Hence it is evident that Krishna remained the enjoyer, and expanded Himself as Radharani to be enjoyed. Radha, the pleasure potency, did not become the enjoyer. She became the enjoyed.

 

Do we agree on this conclusion?

[Guest guest]

 

Shagadellic baby,yeah man,groovy baby!!!

The point,my dear Watson,is that you cant always get what you want.

But if you try sometime ...you just might find...you get what you need.

Try reading, without trying to find fault as your motivation,try reading without the attitude that you know it all,and that anything that differs from your opinion,must be defeated.

Why be self defeating?

You want to enter into the intimate association of Radha Krsna, nez pa?

First ,you need to understand what that entails.

What Radha actually desires of you.

Then the reality of that association,(although it may differ then your present conception)is made possible.

As Sridhar Maharaja said-The truth is sometimes flowing to us in a crooked way,it is coming from here,then from there,then again from a new place.

 

[raga]

Shiva, I can't make heads or tails out of what you say.

 

It is obvious you don't have a high regard for what people say here, you are on a mission to defeat everyone and to establish your conclusions which are correct on their own authority.

 

But let me ask, from whom did you learn the things you keep going about? Who is your guru?

 

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again. Who is the person from whom you have learned the purport of the scriptures?

 

And I'll ask it again, from whom are you learning, from where do you draw your authority?

 

And I'll ask it once again just so that there is no chance for missing it, based on whose authority do you speak?

 

Because I know that Swami AC Bhaktivedanta has said:

<blockquote>The message of Srimad-Bhagavatam is coming down by disciplic succession, and in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession."

 

============ REF. SB 2.9.7</blockquote>

 

Shiva, once again I will ask, who is the current link in your disciplic succession? Are you a prophet of your own design, or are you learning from someone who actually knows?

[Guest guest]

This is a common misconception.

Krsna did not expand as Radha.

God is one.

That one became two.

God became male ,and female.

He did not begin as male.

Male and female,are both creations of

God.

God is male and female.

Not that God is male,then expanded

to become female.That is absurd.

God became male,and female.

They are complimentary,they are

not coming from each other.

God,is Krsna,God is Radha.

Male and female.

They are both creations of

Gods desire.

So,what is the point?

Radha,is the inner self of

Krsna,his internal energy.

Mahaprabhu,is displaying,

what the highest,desire,

of God is.

Tasting life,as Radha.

 

[Bhaktavasya]

Originally posted by shiva:

 

The verse is in the Caitanya Caritamrta,so what if its in the purport?

look up the verse,you will find ,if the vedabase is not faulty,Srila Prabhupada giving Jivas commentary.

The other point,I did give Srila Prabhupadas quote,and where it was located,maybe you should read the intro to the Caitanya Caritamrta.

Also,when you are actually self realized,then being able to speak to Radha Krsna,is part of the equation.

So if your not speaking to the Personality of Godhead,then automatically, this excludes you from the ranks of the self realized,thereby leaving room for growth,if you know it all,you would have it all.

OOh! 'the ranks of the self-realized'

 

'if you know it all, you have it all'

 

Shiva, you must consider yourself deeply entrenched within the ranks of self-realized, or you wouldn't be so strongly convinced that you know and have 'it all'.

 

Please read in Chaitanya Charitamrita, adi lila chapter 4, beginning with txt 103:

 

"There is a principal cause for Lord Krishna's appearance. It grows from his own engagements as the foremost enjoyer of loving exchanges." all the way through to txt 177:

 

"Lord Krishna has made a promise to reciprocate with his devotees according to the way they worship him."

 

Then let us discuss and discover as gentle-persons the true identity of Sri Chaitanya and purpose of the Appearance!

 

 

 

[raga]

Could you answer the question Shiva? From whom do you learn? Or do you have a direct connection with transcendence, with no via medium in between?

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-03-2002).]

[Jagat]

I missed a lot here.

 

I don't think Shiva bothers reading anyone's posts. Raga has been extremely helpful in pointing out the exact quotation from Prabhupada's books.

 

I really don't intend to get any further involved with you, Shiva. Here is my parAjaya patra--

 

To whom it may concern:

 

I have been thoroughly defeated in fair debate by Shiva (not the Lord, but the person using that alias on India Divine Forums).

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>I accept that being Krishna's pleasure potency means that Radha enjoys independently of Krishna.

<LI>I accept that Radharani is only truly happy when separated from Krishna.

<LI>I accept that only through reading A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's books with the help of Shiva can I get a correct understanding of Radha-tattva.

Signed, Jagadananda Das.

 

Show this to others. Maybe it will help get them onside, too. I understand you could not convince Narayan Maharaj's followers. They probably won't accept my parAjaya patra as

evidence, but you can always try.

 

May your aspirations to be a Dig-vijayi Pandit be ever successful.

 

Ys, Jagadananda Das.

 

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by shiva:

Jijaji,what are you babbling about now?

 

> I suggest looking in the mirror!

 

Babajis?

I am against them?

I only accept A.C.Bhaktivedanta?

 

>AH HAH..we get to the Nitty Gritty so to speak!

You sound totally close-minded, scarry!

 

Wow,you are quite the editor.

Instead of putting words in my mouth,how about you thinking through, what you write,before you write it.

 

>right

 

You are the one who seems to have an agenda?

 

>right

What is the reason for your fabrication?

Is your allperfectallknowing vision disturbed?

 

>strange..

You sound like a young kid when you make remarks like that..are you?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Also,Prabhupada uses the word manifest,you change that to expand.

This is the problem.

Expand,means coming from.

Radha,is not an expansion.

She is not like eve,created from adams rib. Male and female,Radha and Krsna are both the manifestation of Gods desire to enjoy.When you change that,and call Radha an expansion,that suggests that Krsna was first,and therefore predominant.

There was no first.

Krsna is not predominant.

Radha is predominant.

Krsna is enjoying the pleasure potency.

Radha is the pleasure potency.

Radha is giving pleasure to Krsna.

Krsna is Radha.

Radha is Krsna.

It's a runaround.

Why?

The confidential lila,is confidential for a purpose.

If you do not understand,and if you have actually read what I wrote.

Then you simply are not ready to understand.

It is as simple as that.

You will never change my opinion.

I know what the difference is between Radha,Krsna,And Mahaprabhu,it is hidden in plain sight.

 

[raga]

Originally posted by shiva:

 

Also,Prabhupada uses the word manifest,you change that to expand.

This is the problem.

Expand,means coming from.

Radha,is not an expansion.

Swami AC Bhaktivedanta has the following opinion:

 

<blockquote>

Krsna, by expanding His pleasure potency, becomes Radharani.

 

============ REF. SB 10.13.20

 

Krsna cannot enjoy anything material because He is full in Himself. Therefore if He has to enjoy something, then that enjoyable personality must be expanded from Him only. So that is Radharani.

 

============ REF. Bhagavad-gita 7.1 -- San Francisco, September 10, 1968

 

 

When He wants to enjoy, He expands Himself, His pleasure potency. So Radharani is His pleasure potency, and the gopis are expansion of Radharani.

 

============ REF. Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.25.36 -- Bombay, December 5, 1974

 

 

Krsna expanded Himself by His pleasure potency. That is Radharani.

 

============ REF. Morning Walk Excerpts -- May 1, 1974, Bombay

</blockquote>

 

[raga]

jijaji: >strange..

You sound like a young kid when you make remarks like that..are you?

 

<center>But... this is spiritual! Interfaith comeback:

 

 

<font face="Georgia" size=3 color=blue>3 "I assure you," He said, "unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

- Jesus, Matthew 18:3

 

</font>

 

 

It is essentially an ego issue at hand. </center><font color=fefefe><small>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-10-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

Please read in Chaitanya Charitamrita, adi lila chapter 4, beginning with txt 103:

 

"There is a principal cause for Lord Krishna's appearance. It grows from his own engagements as the foremost enjoyer of loving exchanges."

Excusiing me but this is appearing to be about the appearance of Lord and not being describing about the eternal Lord. It is saying about "cause" for Lord's appearance.

In spiritual world Lord is eternally there and can not be having cause or the beginning. Lord is therre eternally in Braj with Radhika so she is not having beginning either. What to speak of cause.

So it is seeming that ShivaJi's interpretatives are not being so radical as to be warranting him to be the self realised fellow to justify his raising the challenges.

Please be lightening up.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, we can go on debating what we said on niyamas. The key point is niyamas are important in bhakti yoga in different stages. Practising niyamas should produce tangible results. In the absence of such results, one should not falsely think that one has advanced. One who is not able to see the devas, should not think that he can give up the niyamas of bhakti yoga for one who is a alpa manushya. What then to speak of goloka which is very high ?

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, we can go on debating what we said on niyamas. The key point is niyamas are important in bhakti yoga in different stages. Practising niyamas should produce tangible results. In the absence of such results, one should not falsely think that one has advanced. One who is not able to see the devas, should not think that he can give up the niyamas of bhakti yoga for one who is a alpa manushya. What then to speak of goloka which is very high ?

To begin with, which tradition of bhakti are you speaking about? Also, please let me know which granthas do you use as the reference for your understanding of the same.

 

[theist]

Originally posted by shiva:

This is a common misconception.

Krsna did not expand as Radha.

God is one.

That one became two.

God became male ,and female.

He did not begin as male.

Male and female,are both creations of

God.

God is male and female.

Not that God is male,then expanded

to become female.That is absurd.

God became male,and female.

They are complimentary,they are

not coming from each other.

God,is Krsna,God is Radha.

Male and female.

They are both creations of

Gods desire....

shiva,

 

Sounds like you are saying that Krishna's form has an origin which you call God.God the impersonal formless took on male and female forms to enjoy rasa etc.

 

I hope I am wrong.

 

 

[Jagat]

In this particular case, I agree with Shiva. No problem. But he is playing a word game in one place, but won't play it in the other.

 

Of course Krishna expanding his energy is an expression, like "falling from the spiritual world" that is figurative, expressing something that our time-locked brains can comprehend.

 

Since Krishna is associated with the Absolute Principal, we tend to speak of him first, though in fact, he is only one half of the story. Krishna does not exist without his energies. Nevertheless, there is still a definite reciprocal relationship between energy and energetic, that fits into the role playing appropriate to male and female.

 

The Chaitanya Charitamrita discussion asks the question who enjoys more and answers that it is Radha. But the secret here is that Radha enjoys more precisely because she does not play the role of enjoyer. This is the transcendental mystery of the Supreme Truth, where joy is ever-increasing.

 

I suggest that Shivaji read the episode about the Bengali brahmin who wrote a verse about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Lord Jagannath.

 

Jai Radhe!

 

 

[theist]

Originally posted by Jagat:

In this particular case, I agree with Shiva. No problem.

I'm not sure I understand what his point is in this regard.Sounds like Kripaluism to me.

 

'God became Krishna'? no no no

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Krishna does not exist without his energies.

Somaone is telling me that Lord is can be existing outside the energies but it is the energies that cannot existing outside Lord.

I am suggesting that you mite be needing to understand the Gita where Lord is saying all is in Lord but Lord is not in all. Lord is telling about his most personal aspect and not so much the Narayan level wher he is all the pervading. As the Radha and Krishna Lord is independent.

 

 

 

[sha]

Originally posted by shiva:

<big><font color="red">

 

Also,Prabhupada uses the word manifest,you change that to expand.

This is the problem.

Expand,means coming from.

Radha,is not an expansion.

She is not like eve,created from adams rib. Male and female,Radha and Krsna are both the manifestation of Gods desire to enjoy.When you change that,and call Radha an expansion,that suggests that Krsna was first,and therefore predominant.

There was no first.

Krsna is not predominant.

Radha is predominant.

Krsna is enjoying the pleasure potency.

Radha is the pleasure potency.

Radha is giving pleasure to Krsna.

Krsna is Radha.

Radha is Krsna.

It's a runaround.

Why?

The confidential lila,is confidential for a purpose.

If you do not understand,and if you have actually read what I wrote.

Then you simply are not ready to understand.

It is as simple as that.

You will never change my opinion.

I know what the difference is between Radha,Krsna,And Mahaprabhu,it is hidden in plain sight.</big></font>

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by sha (edited 05-03-2002).]

[Rati]

The Animated Character Siddha Pranali

 

Guru Parampara:

 

Mickey

|

Donald

|

Goofy

|

Pluto

|

Rati (from a parallel universe - not yours truly)

|

Wiley Coyote

|

Roadrunner

|

Elmer Fudd

|

Bugs

|

Pink Panther

|

Ren & Stimpy

|

Jijaji

|

Sponge Bob

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

To begin with, which tradition of bhakti are you speaking about? Also, please let me know which granthas do you use as the reference for your understanding of the same.

Raga, you did not comment directly on my simple statement on niyamas. A person who is on the path of progress should follow the niyamas.

 

Please define your standards for authority and then we can discuss based on that.

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, you did not comment directly on my simple statement on niyamas. A person who is on the path of progress should follow the niyamas.

 

Please define your standards for authority and then we can discuss based on that.

Ram, that is because I wish to first define the basis for our discussion. Otherwise our exchange may turn out to be a non-fruitful exchange of passionate opinions where one tries to convince the other of his own view without reference to proper, commonly accepted pramana.

 

My standards for authority:

 

I am following the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition introduced by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and established by the Gosvamis of Vrindavana.

 

The main books of authority from which I draw my understanding of the practices of this particular path of bhakti are the "Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu" of Sri Rupa Gosvami, the "Prema-bhakti-candrika" of Sri Narottama Dasa, and the "Raga-vartma-candrika" of Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti.

 

Additionally, I accept as authoritative the entire corpus of literature compiled by the six Gosvamis and their direct associates, as well as those of Sri Visvanatha Cakravartipada.

 

Whichever later books exist draw their authority from these foundational works, and are authoritative inasmuch as they are in allegiance with the originals.

 

Is that all right with you?

 

To conclude with, of course everyone follows certain niyamas, in accordance with their respective practice and its coveted goal. This is clearly demonstrated in the famous sravanotkirtanadini verse.

 

Additionally, in the Raga-vartma-candrika, Visvanatha has discussed how each activity on the path of devotion may be classified as svAbhISTa-bhAvamaya, svAbhISTa-bhAva-sambandhinI, svAbhISTa-bhAvAnukUlAni, svAbhISTa-bhAvAviruddhAni and svAbhISTa-bhAva-viruddhAni, and are to be adopted accordingly, having first commented on the aforementioned verse of Sri Rupa and the other two core verses defining the path of practice of the Gaudiya-sadhakas.

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]

[raga]

Ram,

 

If you feel my standards of authority are acceptable, perhaps we may start a new thread to facilitate a clear discussion. Otherwise it may become bogged down by so many other contributions on other subject matters.

 

I'd say really if you want to have a discussion which extensively discusses the concept of niyama in the realm of Gaudiya-sadhana, I suggest you take the topic to "Philosophical and Theological Discussions" of Raganuga Discussions.

 

http://raganuga.org/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=1

[Jagat]

Originally posted by Shashi:

Somaone is telling me that Lord cannot exist outside the energies, but it is the energies that cannot exist outside the Lord.

 

I suggest that you might need to understand the Gita, where the Lord says all things are in the Lord but that the Lord is not in all. The Lord is telling us about his most personal aspect and not so much his Narayan aspect, where he is the all-pervading. As Radha and Krishna, the Lord is independent.

No. There cannot be a saktiman without saktis. An impersonal God is one without energies or attributes. A personal God, by definition, needs his creation.

 

Here are some notes I was preparing for an answer to Satyaraja way back when he was promoting the Vallabhacharya view against the Gaudiya, either here or on VNN. I never sent them in because the discussion got out of hand, but they are relative to this question:<hr><font color=#996666>

Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept that Vedanta Sutra 2.2.42ff is saying that Shakti is not independent in creating the world. On the analogy of the sexual relationship found in Gita 14.3, both male and female elements are needed for creation. The Vedanta does not deny the existence of prakriti or shakti, it only denies its primacy.

 

In this section the sutras are discussing whether or not sakti is independent in the act of creation. The position of Vedanta is that sakti is not independently responsible for the world. She depends upon Brahman. Vs. 2.2.43 tells us that Brahman has no material senses through which he connects with sakti. However in the next sutra it is stated that there is no contradiction (apratisedhah) if it said that Brahman has senses (a body) made of knowledge and so on (vijnana adi). This indeed is what we say and thus while we refute the Shakta theory itself, we do not reject it altogether. We qualify it and include it in Vedanta. The Upanishads say

 

parAsya zaktir vividhaiva zrUyate svAbhAvikI jnAna-bala-kriyA ca (ÇvetU.6.8).

 

So we understand this to mean that Brahman

has Shakti, energy or power by which he accomplishes things.

 

<center>na tasya kAryaM karaNaM ca vidyate

na tat-samaz cAbhyadhikaz ca dRzyate

parAsya zaktir vividhaiva zrUyate

svAbhAvikI jnAna-bala-kriyA ca </center>

 

When the one without a second takes on attributes for the sake of lila (to put it one way; time is not a factor), then the implications of this action are manifold. One of these implications is that everywhere opposites are created, because variegatedness implies opposites. If the Supreme Lord manifests as male, the implication is that an equal and opposite female pole exists in company with that supreme male, or Purushottama. The existence of a supreme male without a female is nonsense, like saying an electron can exist without a proton.

 

These opposites are manifest in primarily three ways (1) unconscious matter (as Krishna is supreme consciousness); this is the jaDa-zakti or external energy; (2)infinitesimal consciousness or jiva (as Krishna is infinite consciousness), this is taTastha energy; (3) and sexually differentiated supreme consciousness or Shakti, as Krishna is supreme malehood. This is also called svarUpa-zakti.

 

The Gaudiya Vaishnavas primarily refer to the Vishnu Purana, where all three of these are referred to as Shaktis of different sorts.

 

<center>eka-deza-sthitasyAgner

jyotsnA vistAriNI yathA |

parasya brahmaNaH zaktis

tathedam akhilaM jagat || [1.22.56]

 

viSNu-zaktiH parA proktA

kSetra-jnAkhyA tathAparA |

avidyA-karma-saMjnAnyA

tRtIyA zaktir iSyate || [ViP 6.7.61]

 

tayA tirohitatvAc ca

zaktiH kSetra-jna-saMjnitA |

sarva-bhUteSu bhUpAla

tAratamyena vartate ||[ViP 6.7.63]</center>

 

The idea of bhagavan without Shakti is, as I have said, a complete contradiction in terms. According to Jiva Goswami, the word bhaga itself refers to Shakti.

 

The ViP thus refers to Lakshmi as anapAyinI (never leaving God), and this same word is also found in the Bhagavatam [bhP 12.11.20] in the same context–

 

<center>anapAyinI bhagavatI zrIH

sAkSAd Atmano hareH ||

 

TIkA ca - anapAyinI hareH zaktiH | tatra hetuH sAkSAd AtmanaH sva-svarUpasya cid-rUpatvAt tasyAs tad-abhedAd ity arthaH |</center>

 

So as you see, the idea of the eternal unity of the Shakti and the Shaktiman is something that is accepted in the Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavata Purana. This is also the meaning of the famous Satapatha Brahmana passage:

 

<center>sa vai naiva reme | tasmAd ekAkI na ramate | sa dvitIyam aicchat | sa haitAvAn Asa yathA strI-pumAMsau sampariSvaktau | sa imam evAtmAnaM dvidhApatayat | tataH patiz ca patnI cAbhavatAm | tasmAd idaM bRgalam iva sva iti ha smAha yAjnavalkyas tasmAd ayam AkAza striyA pUryata eva tAM samabhavat tato manuSyA ajAyanta | </center>

 

<blockquote>“He did not enjoy. Therefore one does not enjoy when alone. He desired a second. So He transformed Himself, becoming as a man and woman locked in embrace. He divided the one atma into two parts, becoming husband and wife. From that pair comes all this universe, so says Yajnavalkya. That sky is fulfilled by woman, and by going to her, mankind was born.” (Satapatha-brahmana 14.4.2.4)</blockquote>

 

The Satapatha Brahmana is full of all kinds of creation myths. This is just one of them. But most of them seem to involve the splitting of the non-dual Brahman into equal male and female parts necessary for the function of creation.

 

To call Radha, Lakshmi or any of Vishnu's shaktis jivas is a complete misunderstanding of the personal godhead.

 

The Gaudiyas NEVER say that the Shakti and Shaktiman are to be worshiped separately. Jiva Goswami finishes the Krishna-sandarbha with the words –

 

<center>tad evaM sandarbha-catuSTayena sambandho vyAkhyAtaH | tasminn api sambandhe zrI-rAdhA-mAdhava-rUpeNaiva prAdurbhAvas tasya sambandhinaH paramaH prakarSaH | tad uktaM zrutyA rAdhayA mAdhavo deva iti | etad artham eva vyatAniSimimAH sarvA api paripATir iti pUrNaH sambandhaH |</center>

 

Briefly, the object of worship is not Krishna, but the Divine Couple, Radha-Krishna.

 

<center>vinA kRSNaM rAdhA vyathayati samantAn mama mano

vinA rAdhAM kRSNo 'py ahaha sakhi mAM viklavayati |

janiH sA me mA bhUt kSaNam api na yatra kSaNa-duhau

yugenAkSNor lihyAM yugapad anayor vaktra-zazinau || </center>

 

<blockquote>One day, when Srimati Radharani and Krishna were separated as a result of some misdeed of his, Shyama's friend Bakulamali came and revealed her mind to Champakalata, "Dear friend, when Radha is separated from Krishna, then to see her gives me a pain in the heart. And when I see Krishna without Radha, I also truly feel great suffering. What misery! Oh beautiful one, I therefore pray that I shall never take any birth in which I shall not be able to drink with my eyes the beauty of Radha and Krishna's moon-like faces, creating a joyful festival together." (UN 8.128)</blockquote><hr></font>The rest, unfortunately, was never completed. Does this help at all?